11 Oct 06
Originally posted by bassoI personally find that to be a load of crap.
the bishop is worth a tad more than the knight
it's all in the position. With a wide open center with no pawns occupying it, that long range bishop on b2 can dominate. But if the central pawns are all locked up, that bishop's gonna look pretty stupid pointing at a wall while the knight jumps over it.
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by bassoApart from the comments made by the good people here, there are also other considerations as far as trading pieces is concerned. For example in the case of a good knight against a bad bishop, the person having the good night wouldn't want to trade off.
As a general rule, particularly in the middle game, since the bishop is worth a tad more than the knight, is it generally to one's advantage to trade a knight for a bishop?
In a situation where one side has a spatial advantage, he would normally refrain from trading down pieces. The logic is that the side with the cramp position would face difficulties in moving around his pieces in a congested space.
If you are ahead in material, say your a up a piece, it is GENERALLY good to trade down pieces because as the number of pieces remaining on the board get lesser and lesser, those remaining ones will become increasingly powerful. This is true even if in the end you are left with an extra pawn advantage. That extra pawn can become very strong.
Some other situations include trading down for better position, eg, trading down with the aim of messing up the opponent's pawn structure.
But these are just general guide. There are many exceptions!
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by onyx2006Well, I wouldn't say it's ALL about the pawns. But I will go as far as the pawn structure being of significant factor in chess. I've read a book which was mainly on pawn structure. I can't remember the writer now, it was years ago. I need to ransack my store room for it! Another book I've also read is on the French Defense. In it, most of the explanations revolve around the pawn formation. When I was reading on the dragon sicilian, especially on the accelerated and classical dragon, again the emphasis was on the pawn move, either d6 then d5, or d5 in one move. So I guess one shouldn't underestimate the significance of pawn formation in chess.
tis all about the pawns!
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by ItalyBoyBlueIs that how you view us?... as 'dirty non-subs'?
I can't believe they let you non-subs talk to eachother... they can't keep you from learning to read and write but you think they'd stop you from starting threads. Can't be too careful with you dirty non-subs.
12 Oct 06
Originally posted by bassoNah... I am not even sure if that is an 'officially-accepted' word for the knight. A friend of mine who's very good in chess used that word before. But I think the 'good' knight is just to emphasise the value of the knight in relation to a 'bad' bishop.
Many good comments here. I understand what a good or bad bishop is, but what is a "good knight"? Thanks.
It is easy to describe a 'bad' bishop. When the bishop is locked in to the same colour square as its own pawns, then it is generally known as a bad bishop. A knight is a knight, and I don't know how it can be good or bad, except for that famous phrase 'knight on the rim is dim', meaning to say that a knight at the edge of the board is less powerful than in the middle of the board. But against a bishop, if that bishop is 'bad', some people say good knight vs bad bishop. The way I see it, there is really no necessity to say 'good' knight. Just knight will do.